Gross

Gross (pronounced grohs)

(1) Without deductions; total (as the amount of sales, salary, profit, etc before taking deductions for expenses, taxes, or the like (net ).

(2) Unqualified; complete.

(3) Flagrant and extreme.

(4) Indelicate, indecent or obscene.

(5) Of personal qualities, tastes, etc, lacking refinement, good manners, education etc; vulgar.

(6) By extension, not sensitive in perception or feeling (archaic).

(7) Extremely, repellently or excessively fat.

(8) Dull, witless (obsolete).

(9) Of or concerning only the broadest or most general considerations, aspects etc.

(10) Obviously or exceptionally culpable or wrong; flagrant (“grossly inefficient”; “grossly incorrect” etc).

(11) In slang, extremely objectionable, offensive or disgusting:

(12) Thick; dense:

(13) In slang, to disgust or offend, especially by crude language or behaviour; to shock or horrify (often used (Gross!) as an exclamation indicating disgust or disapproval.

(14) In botany & agriculture etc (especially of vegetation), dense; thick; luxuriant.

(15) In textiles, coarse in texture or quality (obsolete but still used in this sense in material science & engineering (ie dense, heavy)).

(16) Rude; uneducated; ignorant (archaic).

(17) A unit of quantity, equal to 12 dozen (ie 144, a “dozen dozen”).

(18) In science, seen without a microscope (used typically of tissue or an organ); at a large scale; not detailed (ie macroscopic; not microscopic).

(19) By extension, easy to perceive (archaic).

(20) Difficult or impossible to see through (now used only as a poetic or literary device).

1350–1400: From the Middle English gros (large, thick, full-bodied; coarse, unrefined, simple), from the Old French gros (large; thus the noun grosse (twelve dozen)), from the Late Latin grossus (big, fat, thick (which in Late Latin picked up the additional sense “coarse, rough”).  The adjective gross in the fourteenth century meant “large” but by early in the 1400 it acquired also the senses “thick” and “coarse, plain, simple”, the development reflecting the influence of the eleventh century Old French gros (big, thick, fat; tall; strong, powerful; pregnant; coarse, rude, awkward; ominous, important; arrogant) which was from the Late Latin grossus (thick, coarse (of food or mind)) which, in Medieval Latin also picked up the meaning “great, big” (source also of the Spanish grueso and the Italian grosso).  The word is of unknown origin and no ancestor seems to have existed in the Classical Latin (it’s thought unrelated to the Latin crassus, which meant the same thing, or the German gross (large) but may be cognate with the Old Irish bres (big) and Middle Irish bras (big)).  Although the evidence is sketchy, some etymologists suspect some link with the Proto-Celtic brassos (great, violent).  The verb engross (to buy up the whole stock of) dates from the late 1300s (in this sense it had been in Anglo-French for decades) and was from the Old French en gros (in bulk, in a large quantity, at wholesale) as opposed to en detail;  The figurative sense (absorb the whole attention) was in use by at least 1709 while the curious “parallel engross” (to write (something) in large letters) came from the Anglo-French engrosser, from Old French en gros (in large (letters)).

The comparative is grosser (or “more gross”) and the superlative grossest (or “most gross”) but TikTokers and such also use disgrossting (a portmanteau word, the construct being dis(gust) + gross + ting” and they’re fond also of grossness and (the non standard but most pleasing) grossnessness.  On TikTok, users often are “grossed-out” (highly disgusted) by stuff although sometimes they will post deliberately gross content just to “out-gross” each other.  The negative form “un-gross” is recorded but is rare while de-gross & degrossify are humorous terms used when corrective attempts are being undertaken.  On TikTok and such, grossology is a discipline assiduously pursued and there are many & grossologists.  Gross, grossification & grossness are nouns, verbs & adjectives, grossification, grossology & grossologist are nouns, grossify, grossed & grossing are verbs, disgrossting, grossish & grossest are adjectives and grossly is an adverb; the noun plural is gross or grosses.

Der Grossers: 1938 Mercedes-Benz 770K (W150) Cabriolet F, a seven passenger tourer & parade car, pictured here with the folding soft-top in sedanca de ville configuration (left) and 1966 Mercedes-Benz 600 (W100) Pullman Landaulet with “short” folding roof.  The 770K was produced in two runs (W07, 1931-1938 & W150, 1938-1943) while the W100 was built between 1963-1981.

In the context used by Mercedes-Benz, in the English-speaking world, the use of “grosser” is sometimes misunderstood.  In German, groß means “large” while the Kompatativ (comparative) is größer and the Superlativ (superlative) größte; Der große Mercedes thus translates as “the big Mercedes”.  In that sense groß is used in the sense of “physically large” but it can be used also to be “highest” as in the naval rank Großadmiral (a five-star rank translated in English usually as “grand admiral” and equivalent to admiral of the fleet or fleet admiral).  The idea of the "big Mercedes" wasn't unique and to this day collectors still use the phrase "big Healey" (the Austin-Healey sports car, introduced as the 100 BN 1 (1953-55) which evolved into the 3000 (1959-1968), the term coined in 1958 to distinguish those cars from the smaller Austin Healey Sprite (1958-1970), produced also as the Austin Sprite (1971) and MG Midget (1961-1979)). In English, “gross” went on to prove itself a word of great versatility.

Lindsay Lohan never forgave dictator Hosni Mubarak (1928–2020; president of Egypt 1981-2011) for shouting at Bill Clinton (b 1946; US president 1993-2001).  When told in 2011 he’d fallen from power as one of the victims of the Arab Spring, she responded: “Cool.”  When told it was brought about by a military coup she replied: “Gross!”  Lindsay Lohan doesn’t approve of coups d'état and believes soldiers should "stay in the barracks", allowing due constitutional process to be followed.   

From the meaning “coarse in texture or quality” developed by the 1520s the sense “not sensitive, dull stupid” while that of “vulgar, coarse in a moral sense” emerged within a decade.  The early fifteenth century meaning “entire, total, whole, without deductions came via the earlier notion “general, not in detail” and in that sense became part of the standard language of accounting (the idea of a “gross profit” being the “before tax” number as opposed to the post-tax “net profit” was known in the 1520s) although the familiar GNP (GNP) didn’t appear until 1947.  The meaning “glaring, flagrant, monstrous” was in use by at least the 1580s and despite it sounding like “valley girl” dialect from the 1980s, the use of “gross” to mean “disgusting” was in US student slang in use by at least 1958; this meaning developed from the earlier use as an intensifier of unpleasant things ("gross stupidity" etc).  The phrase “gross-out” (make (someone) disgusted) became common in the early 1970s while that other favourite (grossness) was in use (purely as a marker of size) by the early 1400s with the more familiar sense of “state of being indelicate, rude, or vulgar” documented in the 1680s.  “Grossness” became a popular word on social media meaning variously “ugly, smelly, disgusting etc) and grossnessness was a twenty-first century adaptation applied more for amusing effect than emphasis.  The idea of a gross being “a dozen dozen” (ie 144) dates from the early fifteenth century from the Old French grosse douzaine (large dozen) although earlier it meant measure of weight equal to one-eighth of a dram.  The verb developed from the adjective in that the late nineteenth century meaning “"to earn a total of” may be compared with the adjectival use “whole, total”.

Lindsay Lohan (with un-done shoe laces) leaving the grocery store having stocked up on essentials, Los Angeles, 2008.  It's not known if her fondness for Doritos (Doritos the singular, plural and collective form, a single chip being "a Doritos chip") was formed or strengthened by them being on the product-placement list for Mean Girls (2004).

Historically, a grocer (used as a surname as early as the mid-thirteenth century) was a trader who owned or managed a grocery store in which were sold groceries; a specialized type was the greengrocer who stocked fresh fruits & vegetables from small shops, typically dotted around suburbs.  The origin of such folk being “grocers” is that they purchased their goods in bulk (ie “by the gross”) at a lower unit cost than if supplied individually or sold in small quantities.  It’s an idea probably as old as commerce itself (indeed, the very essence of trade is selling stuff for more than the cost of purchase/transport/storage etc) but “grocers” in a recognizably modern sense emerged in late thirteenth century Europe (they were known also as “providors” “spicers” or “purveyors”) when traders in the dry goods (sugar, spices etc and eventually tea, cocoa & coffee) which had become available in bulk as a result of European explorers reaching remote countries.  The trader bought their stock in bulk from wholesalers, splitting the items into the smaller quantities purchased by individual consumers.  Buying in bulk didn’t by definition imply everything bought “by the gross” (ie 12 dozen (144)) because different standard measures were used for different types of commodities but the principle was the same.  The word grocer came from grossier (French for “wholesaler”), from the from the Medieval Latin grossarius (wholesaler (literally “dealer in quantity” and the source also of the Spanish grosero and the Italian grossista), from the Late Latin grossus.  From the late 1600s until the 1850s, the word “grocery” referred to a place where people went to drink.

1970 Cadillac Eldorado: 500 cubic inch (8.2 litre) V8 rated at 400 HP (gross).

Until 1971-1972, US car manufacturers quoted power outputs in “gross horsepower” (usually described as HP (horsepower) or BHP (brake horsepower) which meant the measure was taken on an engine dynamometer (the “brake” in BHP) without any power-sapping accessories (generator, alternator, power steering pump, water pump, AC (air-conditioning) compressor etc) being attached.  Additionally, optimised ignition timing was set, low-restriction exhaust headers were installed and neither air cleaners nor anti-emissions equipment were fitted.  What this produced was a number of interesting to engineers and those writing advertising copy but there was often quite a distant relationship to a customer’s experience with what they drove off the showroom floor.  By contrast net horsepower (defined by both the US SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) and DIN (Deutsche Industrienorm (German industrial standard)) tested the engine with all standard accessories installed (including regular induction & exhaust systems) and in all aspects tuned to factory specifications (ie the form in which the things would appear in showrooms).

For the consumer, use of the gross number wasn’t the only misleading thing about Detroit’s rated power outputs in the 1950s & 1960s.  Sometimes they were over-stated (exaggeration long the most common element in advertising) but increasingly the number came to be set artificially low.  In the latter cases, this was done variously to try to (1) fool the insurance companies (which had noted the striking correlates between horsepower and males aged 17-29), (2) not upset the politicians who were becoming aware of the increasing carnage on the roads) or (3) fool those setting the rules in competition (most infamously the 1968 Ford 428 cubic inch (7.0 litre) CobraJet V8 which was rated at a most conservative 335 bhp which enabled it to dominate its class in drag-racing; after that the sanctioning body ignored manufacturers’ claims and set their own ratings).  So, for a variety of reasons, many HP claims were little more than “think of a number” and, late in the era of the crazy muscle cars (1969-1970), a some high-performance V8s were capable of generating as much as 100 gross bhp more than what was put on the tin.

1976 Cadillac Eldorado Convertible: 500 cubic inch (8.2 litre) V8 rated at 190 HP (net).  The notional loss of 210 HP (52.5 %) of engine power was accounted for partly by the change in method from gross to net but the V8 was also detuned in the quest for lower emissions and reduced fuel consumption. Cadillac succeeded in the former; in the the latter not so much and the engine (the industry's biggest in the post-war years) was downsized, firstly to 425 (7.0, 1977-1979) and finally to 368 (6.0, 1980-1984).  When production ended in 1984, it was the last big-block V8 factory-fitted to a US-built passenger car.

Despite the urban myth (which still appears), the industry’s switch from the use of gross to net power ratings was not the product of a government edict or regulation although there was certainly a bit of a nudge because “consumer protection” and “truth-in-advertising” laws meant Detroit had to move closer to realism.  As early as the early 1960s, the emissions control hardware had made the gross readings even more misleading and the increasing use of these devices (PCV (positive crankcase ventilation) valves, air pumps & retarded timing) materially reduced real-world power which, coupled with the reduction in compression ratios which came with the removal of lead from gas (petrol) meant that in 1970-1971, claimed HP began precipitously to fall.  In 1971-1972, although the reductions seemed severe, it was the change in method (gross to net) which accounted for most of the differences but over the next decade, as the emission rules tightened and CAFE (corporate average fuel efficiency) standards were imposed, outputs really did fall; the manufacturers to some extent disguised this by re-tuning the thing to generate prodigious low-speed torque (at the expense of mid and upper-range power) but the differences really were obvious and the 1974-1984 period came to be known as the “malaise era” for a reason.

Grossnessness: Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945, Hitler's designated successor & Reichsmarschall 1940-1945) in SA (Sturmabteilung (literally “Storm Division” but better known as the “brownshirts” or “stormtroopers”) uniform, Reichsparteitag (Party Rally), Nuremberg (believed to be 1934 event).

In countries of the common law tradition which criminalized make homosexual acts, historically, the offence of “gross indecency” (a non-penetrative sexual act) was the companion to the “detestable and abominable vice of buggery” (a non-penetrative sexual act).  For countries with legal systems base on the common law tradition, “negligence” & “gross negligence: are conceptually related but differ in degree (not kind); the practical distinction lies in culpability thresholds and legal consequences, which vary by jurisdiction and context.  Negligence (at law sometimes as “ordinary negligence”) is the failure to exercise the standard of care a “reasonable person” (also a concept with a long legal history) would in similar circumstances be expected to exercise.  Depending on the case, negligence may involve carelessness, inadvertence or a lack of due attention and does not imply “moral blameworthiness” beyond failing to meet the objective standard.  In England, although Lord Denning’s (1899-1999; English judge 1944-1982) quip: “gross negligence is negligence with a vituperative epithet” is often cited, in operation, the term has substantive effects and in the criminal law there is the offence of "gross negligence manslaughter".  The only ones who seem to continue (except in the most egregious cases) to remain exempt from being subject to the threshold standard of "gross negligence" are the doctors who seem still able to convince all and sundry every inconvenient death is "medical misadventure".   

“Gross negligence” is not at law a separate tort (although it can operate as if it is) and is an aggravated form of negligence, understood generally as a great departure from the standard of care, demonstrating reckless disregard or indifference to the safety or rights of others, thus judges having included in the judgments phrases such as “utter disregard for prudence”. “want of even scant care” and “conduct bordering on recklessness”.  While “gross negligence” does fall short of intentional wrongdoing, it can approach or even approximate recklessness on the spectrum of culpability and in many cases, contractual exclusions or liability waivers may bar claims for ordinary negligence but cannot exclude liability for gross negligence.  It’s also a standard administered on a “case-by-case” basis and certain immunities (such as statutory protections for volunteers or professionals) may not apply to gross negligence.  Were a medically untrained “good Samaritan”, attending to an injured person they’d stumbled upon, to do something which if done by a nurse or doctor might be thought “negligent”, they’d almost certainly not be held liable on that basis and even had it been a passing medical professional who had done the same act, the threshold of “gross negligence” still might not be met.

Map: World GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in PPP (purchasing power parity) 2025.

GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and GNP (Gross National Product) were once the most commonly used metrics economics calculated to measure a nation’s macroeconomic performance.  GDP measured the total market value of all final (ie end of process which may be multi-national) goods and services produced within a country’s borders during a specific period (usually a year or quarter although faster reporting mechanisms have resulted in some also producing “provisional” monthly outcomes).  GDP’s core principle is the “location of production” and included all domestically produced products, regardless of the corporate ownership structure which meant off-shore production by domestically owned companies was not included.  For economists and policy-makers, GDP remains attractive because (1) its movements tend to track (though not necessarily in unison) markers like employment & inflation and (2) it is relatively easy to accurately to measure; it continues to be used by most governments (including some of the larger, sub-national units) and institutions such as the IMF (International Monetary Fund), UN (United Nations), World Bank, OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation & Development) and BIS (Bank for International Settlements).

GNP (usually) is broader in that it measures the total market value of all final goods and services produced by a country’s nationals, regardless of where that production occurs, the core principle being ownership of the means of production & distribution.  Essentially, what GNP measures is (1) value of output produced by domestic-owned firms at home and off-shore and (2) income earned by individuals & companies from overseas investments; thus excluded is output produced domestically by foreign-owned firms meaning the difference between GDP & GNP can vary greatly between economies depending on their structure.  What links GDP & GNP is a mysterious formula (which began as an add-on for modelling tools) called NFIA (net factor income from abroad) explained as: FI earned by residents from abroad – FI earned by non-residents in the country meaning GNP = GDP + income earned by residents abroad.  NFIA is important to those wishing to analyse GNP because of the effect large multinational corporations (Japan, the UK & US emblematic examples) have on the calculations and, as a general principle, GDP tends better to reflects domestic economic activity while GNP is a better measure of aggregate national income available to residents.  The long-standing (if not always understood except as a comparative) GDP remains the standard “headline measure” most familiar to general observers while GNP is more useful for economists and other specialists.  Essentially, GDP is a measure of the value of local production while GNP calculates national income.  Economics being about money, GDP was thus something of an abstraction but GNP had limitations which is why economists created the newer GNI (Gross National Income) as a refinement GNP; it measure the same underlying concept (income accruing to a country’s resident) but is framed explicitly in terms of income terms rather than production.

Bhutan's construct of GNH (Gross National Happiness).

GNI is the total income earned by a country’s residents and businesses, including income from abroad and excluding income earned domestically by non-residents (ie GNI = GDP + net primary income from abroad) where “income” included (1) wages & salaries, (2) profits, operating surpluses and self-employment income and (3) property income (dividends, interest, reinvested earnings & rents).  GNI frequently aligns almost exactly with GNP and although GNP focuses on production by nationals whereas GNI emphasizes income received by residents, most major trans-national institutions (UN, IMF, BIS etc) tend to use GNI rather than GNP because (1) income is easier to interpret for welfare, savings and consumption analysis, (2) there is structural consistency with accounting frameworks and (3) the numbers are most adaptable to integration with modelling software handling inputs such as NDI (national disposable income), savings rates and balance of payments outcome.  Importantly, it’s also “meaty” for policy makers because governments tax and redistribute income, not gross output statistics.  GNI is thus something of an international standard although the government of Bhutan calculates and publishes an index of GNH (Gross National Happiness) which, philosophically, puts a premium on collective happiness over economic growth.  Although the formula has over the years been made more sophisticated, it’s based still on “four pillars”: cultural preservation, sustainable development, environmental conservation and good governance.

TikToker

TikToker (pronounced tik-tok-ah)

(1) One who is a regular or frequent viewer of the content posted on the short-form video (which, with mission-creep, can in certain circumstances now be up to sixty (60) minutes in duration) sharing site TikTok.com.

(2) One who is a regular or frequent content provider on the TikTok platform.

(3) With a variety of spellings (ticktocker, tictoker, tiktoka etc), a slang term for a clock or watch, derived from the alternating ticking sound, as that made by a clock (archaic).

(4) In computing, with the spelling ticktocker (or ticktocker), slang for a software element which emulates the sound of a ticking clock, used usually in conjunction with digitals depictions of analogue clocks.

2018: The ancestor form (ticktock or tick-tock) seems not to have been used until the mid-nineteenth century and was purely imitative of the sound of mechanical clocks. Tick (in the sense of "a quiet but sharp sound") was from the Middle English tek (light touch, tap) and tock was also onomatopoeic; when used in conjunction with tick was a reference to the clicking sounds similar to those made by the movements of a mechanical clock.  The use of TikToker (in the sense of relating to users (consumers & content providers) of the short-form video (which, with mission-creep, can be up to ten (10) minutes in duration) sharing site TikTok.com probably began in 2018 (the first documented reference) although it may early have been in oral use.  The –er suffix was from the Middle English –er & -ere, from the Old English -ere, from the Proto-Germanic -ārijaz, thought most likely to have been borrowed from the Latin –ārius where, as a suffix, it was used to form adjectives from nouns or numerals.  In English, the –er suffix, when added to a verb, created an agent noun: the person or thing that doing the action indicated by the root verb.   The use in English was reinforced by the synonymous but unrelated Old French –or & -eor (the Anglo-Norman variant -our), from the Latin -ātor & -tor, from the primitive Indo-European -tōr.  When appended to a noun, it created the noun denoting an occupation or describing the person whose occupation is the noun.  TikToker is a noun & adjective; the noun plural is TikTokers (the mixed upper & lower case is correct by commercial convention but not always followed).  The PRC- (People’s Republic of China) based holding company ByteDance is said to have chosen the name “TikTok” because it was something suggestive of the “short, snappy” nature of the platform’s content; they understood the target market and its alleged attention span (which, like the memory famously associated with goldfish might be misleading).

A blonde Billie Eilish, Vogue, June, 2021.

Those who use TikTok (whether as content providers or consumers) are called “tiktokers” and the longer the aggregate duration of one’s engagement with the platform, the more of a tiktoker one can be said to be.  The formation followed the earlier, self-explanatory “YouTuber” and the use for similar purposes (indicating association) for at least decades.  So, the noun tiktoker can be a neutral descriptor but it can be used also as a slur.   In February 2024, at the People’s Choice Awards ceremony held in Los Angeles, singer Billie Eilish (b 2001) was filmed leaning over to Kylie Minogue (b 1968), remarking sotto voce:“There’s some, like, TikTokers here…” with the sort of distaste Marie Antoinette (1755–1793; Queen Consort of France 1774-1792) might have displayed if indicating to her companion the unpleasing presence of peasants.  The clip went viral on X (formerly known as Twitter) before spreading to Tiktok.  Clearly there is a feeling of hierarchy in the industry and her comments triggered some discussion about the place of essentially amateur content creators at mainstream Hollywood (and such) events.  That may sound strange given a platform like TikTok would, prima facie, seem the very definition of the “people’s choice” but these events have their own history, associations and connotations and what social media sites have done to the distribution models has been quite a disturbance.  Many established players, even some who have to some extent benefited from the platforms, find disquieting the intrusion of the “plague of TikTokers”.

Pop Crave's clip of the moment, a brunette Billie Eilish & Kylie Minogue, People's Choice Awards ceremony, Los Angeles, February 2024.

There will be layers to Ms Eilish’s view.  One is explained in terms of mere proximity, the segregation of pop culture celebrities into “A List”, B List, C List” etc an important component in the creation and maintenance of one’s public image and an A Lister like her would not appreciate being photographed at an event with those well up (ie down) the alphabet sitting at the next table; it cheapens her image.  Properly managed, these images can translate into millions (and these days even billions) of dollars so this is not a matter of mere vanity and something for awards ceremonies to consider; if the TikTokers come to be seen as devaluing their brand to the extent the A Listers ignore their invitations, the events either have to move to a down-market niche or just be cancelled.  Marshall McLuhan’s (1911-1980) book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (1964) pre-dates social media by decades but its best-remembered phrase (“The medium is the message”) could have been coined for the era, the idea being the medium on which content is distributed should be the first point of understanding its significance, rather than actual content, the theory being the initial assessment of the veracity or the value of something relies on its source.  In the case of pop music, this meant a song distributed by a major label possessed an inherent credibility and prestige in a way something sung by a busker in a train station did not.  What the existence of YouTube and TikTok meant was the buskers and the artists signed to labels began suddenly to appear on the same medium, thus at some level gaining a sort of equivalency.  Viewing TikTok on a phone, tablet or laptop,  sharing the same screen-space, in a sense, all are rendered equal.

On trend: Lindsay Lohan announces she is now a Tiktoker.

Ms Eilish and her label have been adept at using the social media platforms as tools for this and that so presumably neither object to the existence or the technology of the sites (although her label (Universal Music) has only recently settled its dispute with TikTok over the revenue sharing) but there will be an understanding that while there’s now no alternative to, in a sense, sharing the digital space and letting the people choose, that doesn’t mean she’ll be happy about being in the same photo frame when the trophies are handed out.  Clearly, there are stars and there are TikTokers and while the latter can (and have) become the former, there are barriers not all can cross.

The Tic-Toc Tach

1967 Jaguar 340 (left), 1980 Mercedes-Benz 450 SLC 5.0 (centre) and 1970 Plymouth Superbird (right).  Only the Americans called the shared tachometer/clock a “Tic-Toc Tach”.

Since the inter-war years Jaguar had included a small clock at the bottom of the tachometer but in 1966, phasing in the change as models were updated or replaced, began to move the device to the centre of the dashboard (in the case of the 420 & 420G putting it in a blister in the padded section which had replaced the timber top-rail).  By 1968 the horological shift was almost complete (only the last of the Mark IIs (now known as 240, 340) and & Daimler V8 250 models still with the shared dial) and it was then Chrysler adopted the idea although, with a flair the British never showed, they called it the "Tic-Toc-Tachometer".  Popularly known as the “Tic-Toc Tach”, it was also used by other US manufacturers during the era, the attraction being an economical use of dash space, the clock fitting in a space at the centre of the tachometer dial which would otherwise be unused.  Mercedes-Benz picked up Jaguar's now abandoned concept in 1971 when the 350 SL (R107, 1971-1989) was introduced and it spread throughout the range, almost universal (in cars with tachometers) after 1981 when production of the 600 (W100) ended; Mercedes-Benz would for decades use the shared instrument.  A tachometer (often called a “rev counter”) is a device for measuring the revolutions per minute (RPMs) of a revolving shaft such as the crankshaft of an internal combustion engine (ICE) (thus determining the “engine speed”).  The construct was tacho- (an alternative form of tachy-, from the Ancient Greek ταχύς (takhús) (rapid) + meter (the suffix from the Ancient Greek μέτρον (métron) (measure) used to form the names of measuring devices).

1967 Oldsmobile 4-4-2.

Nobody however crammed more into a tic-toc-tach than Oldsmobile which during the first generation (1964-1967) of its 4-4-2 also included a temperature gauge, ammeter and oil pressure gauge, something necessitated because the instrument panel the stylists were compelled to use contained only two pods.  When the second generation (1968-1972) was released, the dash included a third pod so the ancillary gauges were given their own space and a true tic-toc-tach was used.  Thankfully, nobody seems ever to have attempted to coin a term for five-function device on the early 4-4-2s so those who worry about such things must content themselves with choices like “enhanced tic-toc-tach” or “augmented tic-toc-tach”.  Buyers got the instrument with its “perimeter auxiliary gauges” by choosing option code U21 (Rallye Pac with Tachometer and Clock) for US$84.26 which sounds modest but at the time the bikini-clad and neoprene-tailed “mermaids” who splashed around the coral reef in the middle of Submarine Lagoon at California’s Disneyland Resort were paid US$65 week.  Making a virtue of necessity, Oldsmobile described the cluttered device as a “compact instrument cluster [which] lets driver monitor engine performance at a glance”, not burdening brochure readers with the fact the Rallye Pac wasn’t planned as part of the range and with only two pods on the dash, there was no other way elegantly to cram it all in.

1967 Oldsmobile 4-4-2 Holiday Coupe W-30.

The 4-4-2 was Oldsmobile’s response to the Pontiac GTO, introduced in 1964 by the companion GM (General Motors) division.  The GTO (Pontiac shamelessly “borrowing” the name from Ferrari’s 250 GTO (Gran Turismo Omologato (ie car homologated for competition in the GT (grand-touring) category) was the template for the “muscle car” genre of the 1960s in that it used a big V8 from the full-sized range in the smaller, lighter, intermediate platform.  It was actually an old idea practiced on both sides of the Atlantic since the 1920s but the GTO institutionalized the concept and made it a commercial proposition on a scale never before known because of the then unique conjunction in 1960s America of a large cohort of males aged 17-25 with enough disposable income (or credit-worthiness) to pay for such things.  The GTO existed because Pontiac threaded the configuration through a loophole in the GM corporate rules designed to prevent such things being produced for road use but it sold in such volume at a pleasing profit margin that management’s scruples rapidly were discarded and the crazy years of the muscle car began.  The GTO of course encouraged imitators from Ford, Chrysler and (eventually) even AMC but it also compelled three of GM’s other divisions (Chevrolet, Buick & Oldsmobile) to do their own interpretations.  Only Cadillac stood aloof but in 1970 they did put a 500 cubic inch (8.2 litre) V8 rated at 400 HP (gross horsepower) in the FWD (front-wheel-drive) Eldorado which sounds a daft idea but the engineers disguised its inherent tendencies very well and the delivery of the 400 HP was a very different experience than something like that of the 375 Ford in the same year modestly claimed for the Boss 429 Mustang.

1970 Oldsmobile 442 Convertible, Official Pace Car (Indianapolis 500) Edition.

Though not original, GTO was of course a great name and the best Oldsmobile’s product-planners could come up with was 4-4-2, an allusion to the configuration (front to rear) of a four barrel carburetor, a four-speed manual gearbox and dual-exhausts.  Once explained it made sense but it remained a flaky name, something suffered by later imitators, Dodge’s “Super Bee” as good a car as Plymouth’s Road Runner but with nothing like the same brand-appeal.  Like Pontiac’s GTO, the 4-4-2 was originally an option package but such was the market response both became regular production models.  As it turned out, 4-4-2 was “just a name” rather than a promise because in 1965 when, in order to be advertise the things at a lower base-price, a three-speed gearbox became standard with the four-speed moved to the option list but there was no 4-3-2: 4-4-2 they all remained which made sense because at various times it could be ordered also with two or three-speed automatic gearboxes, none of which ever were dubbed 4-2-2 or 4-3-2.  However, in an inconsistency at the time not untypical in the industry, although in 1968 the badge was changed from “4-4-2” to “442”, both descriptions continued for years to appear in documents and sales literature.

1953 Kaiser Manhattan (left) and 1961 Chrysler 300G (left).

Although no other manufacturer put five separate functions in the one circular pod, others did do five-function clusters in a more elaborate housing but while Kaiser just appended a semi-circular surround for the ancillary gauges (fuel-level, coolant temperature, ammeter & oil pressure) Chrysler in 1960 introduced the “Astrodome”, the name one of many influenced by what was going on during the dawn of the space-age.  What the dramatic Astrodome did was offer the driver a “3D” effect by placing the four gauges in a staggered array on the steering column, using space usually taken by the transmission selector lever, that function moved to a push-button panel on the dashboard while the turn-signals were controled by a sliding lever; to complete the “space-race” look, buttons and knobs were prolific so although the ergonomics weren’t ideal, visually, the atmospherics were most fetching.

1961 Chrysler 300G.

The speedometer was calibrated to 150 mph (240 km/h) which was needed because, even in street trim, the most highly-tuned 300Gs easily could exceed 140 mph (225 km/h).  Despite the concerns sometimes expressed today, the tires of the era were safe to use at such speed (much had been learned from the tyres developed for use in aviation during World War II (1939-1945)) but the drum brakes of the era were inadequate.

Adding to the drama in 1960 was what Chrysler called “revolutionary Panelescent lighting” which was a fanciful term describing the use of electroluminescence (EL), an optical and electrical phenomenon, in which a material emits light in response to the passage of an electric current or to a strong electric field.  As implemented for the Panelescent system, as well as the soft blue backlighting, each gauge pointer was also an individual source of red light.  The Astrodome was used between 1960-1962 on a number of Chryslers including the “Letter-series” 300s and the New Yorker while EL remained in use until 1967; it was last seen on the first generation Dodge Charger (1966-1967).

Conventions in English and Ablaut Reduplication

In 2016, the BBC explained why we always say “tick tock” rather than “tock-tic” although, based on the ticking of the clocks at the time the phrase originated, there would seem to be no objective reasons why one would prevail over the other but the “rule” can be constructed thus: “If there are three words then the order has to go I, A, O.  If there are two words then the first is I and the second is either A or O which is why we enjoy mish-mash, chit-chat, clip-clop, dilly-dally, shilly-shally, tip-top, hip-hop, flip-flop, tic tac, sing song, ding dong, King Kong & ping pong.  Obviously, the “rule” is unwritten so may be better thought a convention such as the one which dictates why the words in “Little Red Riding Hood” appear in the familiar order; there the convention specifies that in English, adjectives run in the textual string: opinion; size; age; shape; colour; origin; material; purpose noun.  Thus there are “little green men” but no “green little men” and if “big bad wolf” is cited as a violation of the required “opinion (bad); size (big); noun (wolf)” wolf, that’s because the I-A-O convention prevails, something the BBC explains with a number of examples, concluding “Maybe the I, A, O sequence just sounds more pleasing to the ear.”, a significant factor in the evolution of much that is modern English (although that hardly accounts for the enduring affection some have for proscribing the split infinitive, something which really has no rational basis in English, ancient or modern.  All this is drawn from what is in structural linguistics called “Ablaut Reduplication” (the first vowel is almost always a high vowel and the reduplicated vowel is a low vowel) but, being English, “there are exceptions” so the pragmatic “more pleasing to the ear” may be helpful in general conversation.

Rolls-Royce, the Ford LTD and NVH

Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud II, 1959.  Interestingly, the superseded Silver Cloud (1955-1958) might have been quieter still because the new, aluminium 6¼ litre (380 cubic inch) V8 didn’t match the smoothness & silence of the previous cast iron, 4.9 litre (300 cubic inch) straight-six, despite the V8 being remarkably heavy for something made substantially from "light metal".

The “tick-tocking” sound of a clock was for some years a feature of the advertising campaigns of the Rolls-Royce Motor Company, the hook being that: “At 60 mph (100 km/h) the loudest noise in a Rolls-Royce comes from the electric clock”.  Motoring journalists did verify the claim (at least in ideal conditions) but given electric clocks can be engineered silently to function, the conclusion was the company deliberately fitted time-pieces which emitted an untypically loud “tick-tock”, just to ensure the claims were true.  The Silver Clouds were, by the standards of the time, very quiet vehicles but in the US, Ford decided they could mass-produce something quieter still and at the fraction of the cost.  Thus the 1965 Ford LTD, a blinged-up Ford (the add-on "gingerbread" in pre-bling days known as "gorp") advertised as: “Quieter than a Rolls-Royce”.

The test conditions were recorded as: “Dry, level, moderately smooth concrete divided highway; light quartering winds.  All cars operated at steady 20-, 40- and 60- mph with all vents closed”.  The two Rolls-Royces were both standard wheelbase Silver Cloud III saloons with the 6¼ litre (380 cubic inch) V8 and four-speed automatic transmissions while the three Fords (a Galaxie 500 LTD, a Galaxie 500/XL and a Galaxie 500 Four-Door Sedan) were all fitted with the 289 cubic inch (4.7 litre) V8 and three-speed Cruise-O-Matic automatic transmission.  The test results were certified by the USAC (United States Auto Club).

To ensure what must at the time have seemed an audacious claim couldn't be dismissed as mere puffery, J. Walter Thompson, then Ford’s advertising agency commissioned acoustical consultants Boldt, Beranek and Neuman to run tests, two brand new Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud III saloons purchased for the project.  What the engineer’s decibel (dB) meters revealed was that, under conditions that were controlled but representative of much of the driving experience in the US, the Galaxies were indeed quieter inside than a Rolls-Royce.  Because of the way the dB scale works, the differences (as great as 5.5 dB) were quite large and obvious to the human ear.  It was a reasonable achievement in engineering and Ford, anticipating the ensuing controversy, was uncharacteristically modest in claiming their 2.8 dB advantage at 60 mph was only “slight”, the numbers making the point with no need for exaggeration.  Ford didn’t mention the tick-tock of the clock.

Ford Galaxie 500/XL advertising, 1965.  In the West, advertising has long been an exception to the general prohibition of the use of "child labor" (Lindsay Lohan was signed to Ford Models at the age of three and soon got her first gig!).

Ford did though “stack the deck”, a bit in configuring the Galaxies with their mildly tuned 289 V8 with a two-barrel carburettor; had the test included another variation on the full-size line which used the 427 (7.0) V8, the results would have been different, the raucous 427 side oiler offering many charms but they didn't extend to unobtrusiveness.  Still, the choice was reasonable because the tune of the 289 was more representative of what most people bought.  Amusingly, it wasn't the first time Rolls-Royce was surprised by the way things were done in Detroit.  Years earlier, the company had obtained a licence to manufacture Cadillac's four-speed Hydramatic automatic transmission, then the benchmark of its type.  Disassembling one, the Rolls-Royce engineers were surprised at the “rough finish” on some of the internal components and resolved their version would be built to their standards of precision.  That done, a lovingly built Hydramatic was installed in a car and tested, the engineers surprised to find it didn't work very well and offered nothing like the smooth operation of the original.  They contacted Cadillac and were told the prototype Hydramatics produced with universally fine tolerances had also misbehaved and the “roughness” of certain components deliberately was introduced to ensure the optimal frictional resistance was obtained.     

Ford Galaxie 500 LTD advertising, 1965.

Not much noticed at the time was another intrusion.  Although the trend had for years been creeping through the industry, what the 1965 LTD did was make blatant Ford's incursion into the market territory once reserved for the corporate stablemate, Mercury, the "middle class" brand between Ford & Lincoln.  This intra-corporate cannibalism (which had already seen Chrysler shutter its DeSoto division) would have consequences, one of which was Mercury's eventual demise, another being Ford's competitors, noting the LTD's success, bringing their own interpretations to the market, the most successful of which was the Chevrolet Caprice (which enjoyed the same relationship to the Impala as the LTD had to the Galaxie 500).  Notably, the Caprice contributed to the later extinction of the once highly popular Oldsmobile, squeezed from its niche by Chevrolet (from below) and Buick (from above).  What were once gaps in the market, catered to by specific brands, ceased to exist. 

1965 Ford LTD (technically a “Galaxie 500 LTD” because in the first season the LTD was a Galaxie option, not becoming a stand-alone model until the 1966 model year).

Even before the LTD was released the full-sized cars produced by the US industry featured the world's finest engine-transmission combinations and Ford justly deserves credit for what was achieved in 1965 because it wasn’t an exercise merely in adding sound insulation.  The previous models had a good reputation for handling and durability but couldn’t match the smoothness and ride of competitive Chevrolets so within Ford was created a department dedicated to what came to be called HVH (Noise, Vibration & Harshness) and this team cooperated in what would now be understood as a “multi-disciplinary” effort, working with body engineers and suspension designers to ensure all components worked in harmony to minimize NVH.  The idea was to craft a platform which, at least on the billiard table like surfaces of the nations freeways, would match the powertrains for smoothness and that was a task which would absorb much time and effort because the mildly-tuned V8 engines most customers bough were unobtrusive in their delivery and the automatic transmissions didn't so much change gears as slur effortlessly between ratios.

Ford Galaxie 500 LTD (with "Body/Chassis Puck") advertising with , 1965.

What emerged was a BoF (Body on Frame) platform (a surprise to some as the industry trend had been towards unitary construction) to ensure the stiffest possible structure but the combination of the frame’s rubber body-mounts (which Ford dubbed "pucks" because of their similarity in size and shape to the rubber disks used in ice hockey), robust torque boxes and a new, more compliant, coil-spring rear suspension delivered what even the competition's engineers (though probably not the sales staff) acknowledged was the industry’s quietest, smoothest ride.  To solve the problem of troublesome vibrations, the material had before come to the rescue, a rubber layer for the carburettor mountings proving the solution to the resonance which, at certain road speeds, affected the flow of the fuel-air mix in the MGA Twin-Cam, resulting in pistons melting.  Alas, the fix was discovered too late and the MGA was doomed.  Norton had better luck with their Isolastic, a rubber-based engine mounting which disguised the chronic vibration on the Commando's 750 cm³ parallel twin, allowing the company (as something of a last gasp) to extract a (sometimes profitable) decade from what was an antiquated design.

Ford LTD advertising, 1980.

In geopolitics and economics, much changed between 1965 and 1980.  Whereas Ford had once been able prove their Galaxie range (US$2,800-4,800) was quieter than a US$17,000 Rolls-Royce, by 1980 a LTD (the Galaxie name, dating from 1959 was retired after the 1974 season) sold typically for between US$6,400-8,000, reflecting the inflation which became entrenched during the 1970s.  That was representative of the effect on domestically produced cars but an "entry-level" (the concept really was used even of cars from the more exulted) Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow now listed for a minimum US65,000-odd and if that wasn't thought conspicuous enough consumption, there was the two-door Camargue with a price tag in six figures.  The LTD was looking even better value.  Ford in the era made a bit of a thing of comparing their locally produced machines with high-priced stuff from across the Atlantic, one campaign showing how closely the US Granada (1975-1982) resembled various Mercedes-Benz; these days it's the Chinese manufacturers which are accused of plagiarism although they often are more blatant in their copying.  Reckoning however what worked in 1965 would still work 15 years on, Ford re-ran their tests and, in a regulatory environment which was rather more harsh on advertising claims, asserted only that "The 1980 Ford LTD rides as quietly as a $65,000 Rolls-Royce".  The tic-tock of the clock still didn't rate a mention.